Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Safari Cruises


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete - fails WP:CORP with no reliable sources. Krakatoa Katie  00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

American Safari Cruises

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Clearly an advertisement with no notability established and a conflict of interest from the original editor (name same as article). This was originally up for speedy which was semi-contested by another editor and I prodded it. I then took the prod tag off on my own because while no one had removed it, the editor continued adding the holdon tag which indicated to me that they wished to contest it and just misunderstood the nature of the new tag Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was the editor that removed the speedy (to give this one time despite the obvious conflict of interest issues with the article's creator).  I've been searching for independent, reliable resources to keep this article and cannot find any.  The resource quoted in the article is from Cruisecritic.com, and reads in a very promotional nature, or in other words, not reliable.  I've done other google news searches to see if they've been written about.  Back in 2006, they were briefly mentioned (as a quote in an article about cruising in general) in a St. Petersburg Times article. Other than that, this article's main contributor appears to be attempting to increase the web hits for the organization.  The guideline against that is called WP:SPAM.   Keeper   |   76  22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom--IslaamMaged126 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - at the moment it's just an advert. Deb (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is definitely not in any kind of good shape as it is. With a lot of rewriting and work, it may no longer be an advertisement and might have notability.  But someone needs to step up and do some major revision for this article to be considered for keeping.  I won't mark delete, because of the chance someone might just come along and fix this article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not you? You're the only one (so far) that feels this is worth fixing, so fix it.  Keeper   |   76  16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would contend that there is simply nothing here worth keeping. Even if the article is shifted so it is not spam anymore, the notability of the company is so hopelessly weak.  There are only maybe three things that could be considered mentions in outside sources, and they all suffer major reliability issues, a review and a passing mention if memory serves me correctly.   Reviews aren't notable.  Even the NY times reviews books that wind up sucking, and unless they suck so bad that they become notable for it, the review doesn't justify its mention here, and this source isn't a percent as noteworthy as the NY times.  Also, a passing mention in a news post about something else is hardly notable.  Guess what, I was in a news broadcast too because the TV station did an article on the asston of snow we got last year.  Doesn't mean jack about me.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 16:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.